Dear Editor,
President Irfaan Ali’s brazen decision to deliver his inaugural address for a second term outside the walls of Parliament — and to deliberately exclude the duly elected Opposition MPs from the audience — stands as a grave assault on the democratic norms of our Republic. In choosing the lawns of the Arthur Chung Convention Centre, the very ground where the National Assembly sits, he staged a cynical performance — symbolism without substance, ceremony without legitimacy.
This act was not only undignified; it was calculated, sending a subtle yet unmistakable message that his “One Guyana” rhetoric is mere camouflage for an exclusionary, vindictive style of governance. It exposes the duplicity of a leader who preaches unity while practicing division, and leaves the nation to wonder: is this the grim preview of how he intends to rule in his second term?
Editor this carefully choreographed act of political theatre, marks a disturbing departure from Guyana’s democratic traditions. The President insists that “Guyana is not a one-party state.” Yet, by choosing to bypass Parliament in delivering what is, by every constitutional and historical measure, a parliamentary address, he has demonstrated precisely the opposite.
For generations, Presidents have opened parliamentary sessions before both government and opposition members, in full view of the diplomatic corps, civil service, and the nation’s people. It is there, not on manicured lawns, that the President outlines the legislative and policy agenda for the coming term. That is the essence of democratic accountability — speaking to the elected representatives of all the people, not only those who wear your party’s colors.
Today, Parliament stands paralyzed — without an officially appointed Leader of the Opposition, without the participation of elected opposition members, and without the resumption of parliamentary business. Against this backdrop, President Ali’s decision to sidestep the National Assembly and stage what should have been a constitutional address in a political echo chamber reveals a government increasingly comfortable with exclusion.
It is striking, too, that the international community, so often vocal on issues of democratic governance elsewhere, has maintained a studied silence here. Their quiet acceptance of this democratic erosion only deepens the sense that Guyanese must now rely on themselves to defend the institutions that safeguard their rights. Democracy dies not only through overt suppression but also through the slow normalization of exclusion and executive overreach.
The President’s oft-repeated “One Guyana” rhetoric rings hollow when his actions contradict the very spirit of unity and inclusion he professes. You cannot speak of national cohesion while sidelining half of the country’s elected representatives and stripping Parliament of its central authority. True leadership requires engagement with dissent, not avoidance of it.
If Guyana is truly “not a one-party state,” then its President must return to the democratic stage where accountability belongs — the National Assembly — and face not only his supporters but also those who challenge him. Anything less is theatre masquerading as governance.
Yours truly,
Hemdutt Kumar
